I see Obama from different aspects. I saw his speech after coming to an agreement as being more outraged that people disagree with him as more of a slam of his opponents. And more like the behavior of a 10-15 year old child than an adult. Speeches prior to that and his agreement speech suggest his inability to comprehend all Americans have the right to disagree with him, his party or republicans in name only like Bloomberg trying to pass a law banning drinks over 16 oz.

I was a boy when I saw fire hoses, dogs and clubs used to beat Martin Luther Kings followers. Decent democrats were so disgusted with KKK democrats they started calling themselves liberals and progressives.
The KKK was bankrupted but it didn't stop illiterates from advancing the "we are right" attitude of illiterates.

I consider Obama to be the leader of the "nice" KKK mentality that thinks his election made him emperor, king or god of America. If conservatives pass a law nice KKK thinking people do what they can to destroy it but if Americans see KKK medical care (Affordable Mecical care as a joke) and oppose it we are wrong.

One of Obama's advisers condones Eugenics including Eugenics where people not considered productive are a burden on society. Obama has stated at some age seniors don't have the right to medical care more than pills. Americans voted Obama to be president. But he sees himself as god and executioner like a 10 year old child without a conscience.

I think Obama's relationship with Michelle is telling. He stated recently he is afraid of her and stopped smoking. If he wants a hamburger he needs to leave the house. Is his playing golf to also have freedom to have foods not possible around her?

Michelle's dictatorship of Obama he puts up with suggests she is a childish adult and his putting up with her suggests they behave more like 10 year old children than like adults. Also it helps explain why he cannot see he is a bully and elite snob and more dictator than president.

The book, "The Collapse of Complex Societies (New Studies in Archaeology)" by author Joseph A. Tainter outlines the failures of 24 complex societies. All keep adding layer after layer of non-productive government employees till the taxes are not sustainable.

Some Romans cheered for barbarians killing Roman troops so they have more freedom. Freedom from people supposedly educated that are economic illiterate snobs like Obama, McCain & others. Tarinter cites bones of people after Rome fell had a more rich food diet by not being taxed to death.

I forget the school system that needed to hire 1400 teachers. They gave applicants with college degrees & teachers credential a college exit exam and found 59% cannot pass it.

A Oakland radio show asked people running for city council questions about economics & accounting and all were illiterate of topics people seeking political office should know.

Millions of Americans were thrilled by the prospect of the first Black American president before he made statements he has no respect for the American constitution. He promised us his administration will be more honest with Americans & all we hear is lies like raising a budget costs not one more cent!

Why not say the thinks Americans are stupid and illiterate to declare himself brilliant & god himself?

Before Obama all of us have seen the 59% with college degrees not qualified to do anything but memorize college tests. Some Mensa members threaten to kill others disagreeing with them.

Do Americans need to cheer on anyone that can kill Roman troops protecting our mentally 10 year old self declared god? The intent of the US Constitution was to protect Americans from childish adults that make most democracies a dictatorship. Obama's hatred for the constitution shows illiteracy & True Believer beliefs Eric Hoffer defined well. Hoffer defined the behavior of bums & homeless in 1930's that help explain KKK behavior.
How many school kids in America are conditioned to hate conservative thought? Isn't conditioned hatred the key driving force of the KKK? Many democrats hate conservative thoughts but funny thing is few conservatives hate democrat thought. We just consider we need to oppose it.

Most conservatives dislike & few hate dictators & people that bully or threaten us including politicians. But I've come to see people with closed minds to be conditioned to not ask questions or challenge their beliefs more childish.

Has anyone noticed the strong convictions of illiterates of economics, accounting & history seek political office? I think this is to get recognition even though they illiterate because they have strong egos? Few narcissists care about other people.

Should politicians pass a literacy test on: The Constitution, economics, budgeting, & national history? And why past complex governments failed? Without this test all useless programs cannot be cancelled because it proves illiteracy & childish politicians?

A lot of good talking points - I can fill in the evidence. Be encouraged; keep on trying to persuade others, and some certainly will reconsider the folly of blindly following the Progressives over the cliff.

An important concept here is the fact that people have ideological "immune systems" that protect their ideas in the same way that they have immune systems that protect their bodies.

This is especially true of narrow minded people. Such a person has allowed their ideologies to become part of their selves, so that if an inconvenient or contrary fact or argument shows up, then they see it as an attack on the self. Therefore they counter attack with vehemence, even violence.

It is a bit like a child with a comfort blanket. When you try to take away the blanket the child screams, because as far as he is concerned, the blanket is part of himself.

The more extreme, the more vehement, the more aggressive someone is at defending their ideas, then the greater the degree they have absorbed the ideology into themselves. Such people are impossible to argue with. It doesn't matter if their position is completely untenable and utterly at odds with obvious facts. Creationists are a perfect example. Extreme Republicans, like the creationist Tea Party leader Michele Bachmann are another.

Whenever they hear something they don't like, they don't listen to what is being said, consider it and try to find counter arguments. What happens is that the automatic immune system kicks in, and thousands of automatic answers pop up to crowd out the offending notion. For instance, if someone mentions something positive about the ACA, instantly a whole bunch of ideological "T-cell" defenders are kicked into action like "death panels", "RFID implant" rush to repair the ideological breach.

Im a Republican. I don't hear Obama in a different way. I simply don't hear him at all. Anybody who calls an opposition party in America, "the enemy" as Obama did while ago in reference to the Republicans, don't deserve my respect.

And yeah, you are welcome to call me racist. In difference to the rest of Conservatives, I am not physiologically intimidated by the race card. I didn't vote for Gore, or for Kerry, or for Obama. Sure the reason for that was that I "was racist" against all three.

I came to nearly the exact same realization when watching him speak during the shutdown. I couldn't help but feel the words he was using were explicitly chosen to persuade us, American Citizens, to hate Republicans, instead of choosing words that would help to end the shutdown. The collateral effect of this is that it humiliates Republicans and Conservatives, making them act irrationally and hate the President in response. I seriously doubt any center-leaning Democrat or Centrist actually wants more government in our lives just for the sake of more government, but they do want a more equal society where everyone has a chance to succeed. Unfortunately Republicans haven't put forth any better policy proposals because they have been too busy letting the President's language get under their skin.

Remember Mr Obama said as early as 2006 that he relishes being to his interpreters "a blank slate upon which people project what they want to see." His long-term goal has been to subvert "traditional America" - to "fundamentally transform" it, by methods of deception. His "czars" and advisors in a large shadow-government each represent a shockingly extreme ideology. Yes, his interpreters choose what they will, but to those who have tracked his history, associations, and propensities, Mr Obama remains a malignant sociopath in the extreme.

I'm a realist, not a survivalist: are you not old enough to remember 1930's Europe? Don't you remember that Lenin postulated total control of a population by means of controlling access to medical care? Or that Hitler presented himself publicly as a traditional nationalist - although his subversive agenda was plain in Mein Kampf? Obama invited voters to judge him by his associates; have you done that honestly?

I'm a realist, not a survivalist: are you not old enough to remember 1930's Europe? Don't you remember that Lenin postulated total control of a population by means of controlling access to medical care? Or that Hitler presented himself publicly as a traditional nationalist - although his subversive agenda was plain in Mein Kampf? Obama invited voters to judge him by his associates; have you done that honestly?

What's the point of airing a silly name-call? Answer my evidentiary assertions if you can. I've studied Obama for six years and have read all I can about him, hoping to disprove my initial impressions that his murky history suggests evil. But questions remain: who is he really? Did he have an Indonesian passport? Enrolled as a foreign student? Disciple of Frank Marshall Davis? A fanatic Progressive? Why do politicians lie to us? What is Obama hiding? An evil agenda, or mere incompetence?

As a citizen who has voted in presidential elections for forty plus years, I have to tell you that I really don't listen that much to what Obama says. I see him as a guy who does some things right, some wrong and pretty much works to the middle. I think Obamacare is simply a law that's been needed since Nixon tried to reform healthcare in America. So I don't pay much attention. What I DO pay attention to are the maniacs on the right. These people are a cancer. They have no plans other than personal attacks. They would destroy everything to protect themselves. Politics have always been bare knuckle. But this nonsense has to end.

Right. Glad you brought that up. Why don't you do some research and learn why that is the case? Read the Stiglitz book on the growing gap between the wealthy and everyone else. Learn why the middle class actually started getting screwed in 2000 as corporate profits rose while workers got cut. We're in a new economy and the Republicans want the upper class to profit from it at the expense of the "47%."They've gamed the tax laws to do it and created the bogeyman of Obamacare when in fact that law will help starter companies and working families the most. Just remember which presidential candidate had himself a home elevator in his garage.

Sure it did. But is the stock market really a reliable gauge of economic performance?

The stock market rallied, because QE infinity allowed banks to borrow money practically for free, which they used to buy assets. This inflated their prices artificially and, arguably, created a mini-bubble. Why else would mentions of tapering send stocks lower?

It is fairly gold. And to the bleeding-heart left, keep in mind that this asset price bubble exclusively serves to enrich the mythical "1%" of investment bankers and politicians.

The stock market did well since the crisis. Did the real economy? Hardly that much.

To be perfectly honest, I am absolutely certain that each and every speech not only Obama but every successful politician gives is craftily put together for the purpose of giving the "correct" impression. In this case, I hadn't considered it myself, but the concept of Obama "trolling" the Republicans is marvelous. After all, by speaking moderately and reasonably, it does make the "folks on the other side" seem extreme by comparison. Who is and isn't extreme is an entirely different story, but it is a brilliant idea in any case. Way to go speech-writer.

"To be perfectly honest, I am absolutely certain that each and every speech not only Obama but every successful politician gives is craftily put together for the purpose of giving the "correct" impression."

Yes indeed.

Ted Cruz says over-the-top things as a junior Senator looking to replace Sarah Palin as a very, very successful writer and speech giver. As President, Barack Obama has a different goal and a different way of talking. If Ted Cruz were President -- which he most certainly will not be with the language that he uses -- then he would sound like a different man.

As did Barack Obama as a junior Senator lamenting the growth of the national debt, and voting against raising the debt ceiling (although that was a bit different in being a symbolic vote while on the losing side and not attached to the threat of a shutdown).

A very interesting article.Obama that evening seemed so clear-headed, specific, neutral yet very very partisan,and like a sailor emerging out of a storm- exhausted but confident.My 2008- crush n awe over him was rekindled all over.Although now lost in the tides of messed up healthcare software,an unwinable war in Afghanistan and fumbling about who to side with in the Middle East, the speech for a minute made me think of the guy 'who could walk on water'.

I'm just a college student, so I didn't understand everything you wrote. But, from what I have understood you probably are overthinking, and being overly paranoid about a speech so simple and easy to understand. I don't think there is much more to it.

'it's interesting to think about how Mr Obama decides on the language he uses, when the two audiences he's speaking to will interpret every statement through such different lenses.'
Sounds like your implying each party is interpreting the speech in a way to create an argument, or to benefit themselves, possibly even both.

Senator Warren is not a 'flaming liberal', the Senator is a New Deal Liberal,a rare political bird and utterly valuable because of that status. She is what President Obama could have been, if he weren't in the political thrall of the American Neo-Liberalism known as Clintonism. Or if he had an ounce of real fight, (this said in angry resignation) although he surprised me with his tenacious attitude in regard to the Nihilist Republicans: he is a natural conciliator which leads to his framing of the conflict in the most neutral language, even in victory.
Speaking of rhetoric, the term 'Interpretive Communities': Mr. Fish is without doubt a gifted and persistent conversationalist. See his regular essays at the New York Times web site. But if our cultural context determines our view of a text, our politics might determine my view of the shutdown as well as the view of the writer of this essay. An example of the mirage of 'relativism'? But in this case the long digression provided by this term and the mention of the Blake debate, seeks to take this essay out the political present and denature it: to self-servingly re-describe the conflict outside it's time and political context. Nihilist Republicans as destructive radicals, who seeks to subvert not just the A.C.A. but the very notion and practice of governance. A fulfillment of the status of President Obama as 'other' and 'usurper' in the Nihilist Mythology.
StephenKMackSD

President Obama was not trolling in this particular speech; however, in the majority of his speeches regarding the shutdown and its aftermath he most certainly has. His attitude of "I won, get over it" flies in the face of our how our constitutional system was designed. It was designed with multiple checks and balances and not for wholesale "change" after an election. Progressives in general, and this president in particular fail to understand this. This simple misunderstanding is what infuriates the 45 plus percent of America that did not vote for the president. I apologize if the author who I can only assume is British also fails to understand our political system. There are no vote of no confidence or dissolution of parliament if there is a logjam in government. As for trolling, it occurs every time you are accused of being a racist or troglodyte or some other unsavory ignorant beast for opposing Mr. Obama's policies. How about we be a bit more civil, stick to the facts and adhere to constitutional principles. If we ignore our constitution we risk ending up like some nations where the rule of law is ignored like Venezuela. Hugo Chavez sure brought a lot of "change" after winning an election, and not for the better.

I am torn by the conclusions/question at the end of the article. The author asks if the president is deliberately taunting the opposition. My question to the author is, can he craft/suggest any sort of statement (other than capitulation or resignation form office) which the president could make, which would not infuriate the opposition? Perhaps the truth lies here: the simple existence of a center-left African-American president in his second term is enough to cause strong negative reaction. That fact, combined with any reminder of the current repudiation of the opposition's recent effort, is galling. If this is true, then putting the burden on the President not to 'troll' is unreasonable. If anything/everything he says (except to accept their dominance) causes them to get emotionally wrapped around their axle, then he is not at fault. Put the responsibility where it lies.

The existance of a center-right African-American President (or any Democrat who isn't far right, for that matter) would be enough to infuriate the Republican base. And has been.
.
Which makes your basic point even stronger. There is absolutely nothing that this President, or probably any Democrat, could do which would not be greeted with outrage. The closest any of them could come would be to earn a deafening silence, such as the opposition's failure to comment on the President's family values -- so obviously superior to any number of their proclaimed heroes.

From my standpoint on the right, this response is the sort of insulting, race-baiting nonsense we have come to expect from the progressives.
That many on the left actually believe we are unhappy because the President is African-American is astonishing us. It is also deeply insulting, implying that none of our ideas or arguments have any meaning - we're just racists. It flies in the face of evidence - for example, the deep respect most conservatives hold for Clarence Thomas, both of whose parents were African-American.
Until progressives stop stereotyping the right, they will be unable to understand us, but they will surely destroy whatever good will we might have for compromising with them.
"You didn't build this" is but one of dozens of examples of Obama's reflexive offensiveness.

Many on the right, me included, are unhappy with the President on account of some of his policies. (Just as many on the left are unhappy with him on account of some of his policies.)
.
But it is impossible to argue that there are not some on the right whose unhappiness is due to his race. And a whole lot whose level of hysteria over policies that they dislike is magnified on account of his race. It doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees with him does so for racist reasons -- although some progressives sloppily phrase it that way. But certainly some do . . . and the right has been remiss in not smacking them done hard and fast, if only to keep from undercutting our policy objections.

While I'm sure there are a few who are racist - you can a never completely get rid of that. None of the leaders on the right have used race in their arguments, unlike Obama. But his race is a significant factor in the opposition from the right.

Who are we supposed to be smacking down? Where are these racists on the right for us to condemn? How can you say that the right has been remiss in not smacking them down? I certainly don't see them except a few nut jobs on comments sections.

you completely ignored the point of his comment, instead focusing on the one potentially controversial assertion regarding potential racism on the right. this is a good example of the trolling the article is debating. Not sure if that was your intention, but way to go.

also, you seem to have missed the part where the line "you didn't build that" taken in context was actually about working together to solve problems. not a particularly divisive idea.

I suspect that Obama's neutral, centrist language doesn't widen the window of debate, and that widening the window might work better. He tunes his message until he asks for what he can win: so the compromising is done before he shows his hand, and so it doesn't feel like a compromise.

If Obama had fought hard for single-payer, and then compromised with the Affordable Care Act which would then be in the middle of the debate-window, at least some Republicans who feel like ObamaCare is an extreme bill (because it was the most extreme thing we've talked about) and there was no compromise (partly because the compromise was already baked in) might be calmer now.

He'd still get a ton of outrage from those who manufacture outrage, and I bet a Reagan-clone would be scewered by the Tea Party if he wasn't one of them, I just think the Democrats need to ask for some real change before compromising. They're going to get called Socialist, so if they are nearly as conservative as Nixon, it makes a very weak party.

@Jouris - One person waved a Confederate flag at one demonstration in DC. That was a rally of veterans (you know, those of us who fought for your freedoms), so your accusation demeans veterans as racists. The flag waver certainly didn't look or act like a veteran, and could easily have been a Democrat plant. There have been a number of times when progressive activists have impersonated conservatives and acted badly.

As for birthers - that isn't racial either. Obama withheld evidence for a long time - probably to spur on the conspiracy theorists - and it worked. Obama could have settled it much earlier had he wanted to.

Birthers are people who are unsatisfied with the evidence (and they had some reason to be for a few years) and thus fear (or hope) that Obama is not legally qualified to be President. I think they're wrong, but their doubt doesn't make them racists.

veterans (you know, those of us who fought for your freedoms)
.
You might be amazed how much someone who was also in the military (and I have the commission document and the honorable discharge to prove it) dislikes having someone else assume that anyone who disagrees with him must not have served. Almost as much as I dislike someone making the assumption that service in the military is the only valid marker for having a valid opinion on this country.

Obama is speaking to history. However much he would like there to be something everyone can agree on, his opponents will consider any agreement as coming with a price so will refuse to agree unless he yields on something he disagrees with, but this is just considered as a further agreement that requires more concessions. There will be no agreement. There can be no agreement. Not when the only possible agreement is total surrender.

Our current political debacle is an example of ideology trumping fact, emotion trumping reason, and our American tendency to treat politics as an extension of parochial religious fervor. President Obama has some good points and some bad points, except for those who are extremists. In this case, his points are either all good or all bad. That's a simply irrational and destructive approach to politics and government, but that's where we are. A better approach to figuring out what is actually going on, is to look at non hot bottom issues. For example, Obama is religious, but not a missionary type who wants to convert people to his church and his pew. However, his die hard Tea Party adversaries lug around the notion that they and only they have seen the true light. In far too many Tea Party cases, this is a white, little, clean and neat light. And they instinctively "know" that any other kind of light is not really American. That's probably why so many Tea Partiers prefer to believe that Obama was not born in America and is a closet Muslim. No wonder the Tea Party won't compromise: true believers would rather go down in flames, then let their own parochial,little white light go out. To them, Obama is different and therefore threatens them.

Ninety-five percent (or more) of the vocalized opposition reasoning to Obama is racism, pure and simple. The Shrub went on television to announce war for existential reasons, an then proceeded to cut taxes, not raise them. NOT ONE POLITICIAN has put forth a plan to raise taxes to cover the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Yet the Republicans whine that Obama wouldn't "negotiate" after the Republicans themselves took higher taxes and revenues off the table. Nowhere, either, will you see a Republican advocating special taxes on Wall Street to recoup the $700 billion (not counting interest) that the Shrub gave them in September, 2008, when his refusal to enforce existing regulations and the contradictions in his own financial policies finally imploded the economy.

So no, it's not a question of ideology trumping fact, emotion over reason, etc. It's racism. Deficits don't count (per Vice President Cheney)-- unless a black is in the Oval Office. "Negotiations" -- per the Republicans -- require the Democrats to agree to spending cuts only, with no revenue increases, right from the jump.

Intelligent conversation requires at least two intelligent people, and so far the Tea Party hasn't shown any brains. What is sad is that when the Chinese were moving from caring about the color of the cat to the efficiency of the cat, Americans were moving in the opposite direction.

Actually I was agreeing with him, and just pointing out that the "difference" the tea party sees is racism. They want to whine about Obama's deficits? Too bad their silence during the Shrub's administration on that score was deafening.

Your lack of knowledge about race in America is showing. Jim Crow laws have always held that if you had "just one drop of negro blood" then you were classified as black.

So if his opposition fixates on Obama being black, then they're being consistent with American attitudes about race. Besides, you assume that opponents and proponents of a position are always rational, and they aren't.

Your lack of knowledge about race in America is showing. Jim Crow laws have always held that if you had "just one drop of negro blood" then you were classified as black.

So if his opposition fixates on Obama being black, then they're being consistent with American attitudes about race. Besides, you assume that opponents and proponents of a position are always rational, and they aren't.

The opposition are not the racists. Obama and his supporters are the ones who fixate on him being black: "The first black president", etc. etc. Do you hear the Republicans focus on his racial status ?? By the way, I worked for the U.S. Govt for 24+ years, with all races, and attended mandatory "Equal Opportunity" classes. YOU'RE the one who has the lack of knowledge, and lives in the past. Jim Crow ?? Who ?